Jenkins build became unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #456

See

Jenkins build is back to stable : Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #455

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-770: Replace "buffered.records.per.partition" with "input.buffer.max.bytes"

Oh you already did -- missed the VOTE thread somehow. Voted :) On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 6:27 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > Yeah, feel free to kick off the vote > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:08 AM Sagar wrote: > >> Thanks Guozhang and Luke. >> >> I have updated the KIP with all the suggested

Re: [VOTE] KIP-770: Replace "buffered.records.per.partition" with "input.buffer.max.bytes"

+1 (binding) Thanks for the KIP! -Sophie On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:59 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Sagar, +1 from me. > > > Guozhang > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 10:29 AM Sagar wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I would like to start a vote on the following KIP: > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-770: Replace "buffered.records.per.partition" with "input.buffer.max.bytes"

Yeah, feel free to kick off the vote On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:08 AM Sagar wrote: > Thanks Guozhang and Luke. > > I have updated the KIP with all the suggested changes. > > Do you think we could start voting for this? > > Thanks! > Sagar. > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 8:26 AM Luke Chen wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP 771: KRaft brokers should not expose controller metrics

+1, non-binding from me. Thanks, Ryan. Ron > On Sep 7, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Thanks Ryan, > > Read the KIP and it makes sense. +1 as well. > >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:42 PM Colin McCabe wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> thanks, Ryan >> >> best, >> Colin >> >>> On

Jenkins build is unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #454

See

Re: [VOTE] KIP 771: KRaft brokers should not expose controller metrics

Thanks Ryan, Read the KIP and it makes sense. +1 as well. On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:42 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > +1 (binding) > > thanks, Ryan > > best, > Colin > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, at 09:47, Colin McCabe wrote: > > Hi Ryan, > > > > Thanks for working on this. I think it is almost ready to

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-767 Connect Latency Metrics

Hi Jordan, Thanks for the KIP. I'm curious about a possible alternative where the consumer lag for the source connector can be monitored instead of the newly-proposed metric in the KIP. Although sink tasks can't directly report the successful write of a record to the sink system, they are

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Thanks for raising this Colin. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13277 is a one line fix with a test now. The suggestion to include it in RC2 makes sense to me as well. I’ll make sure it’s in. Konstantine On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:42 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > Hi Konstantine, > >

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.0 #125

See

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #453

See Changes: -- [...truncated 419577 lines...] [2021-09-07T21:14:48.585Z] > Task :metadata:testClasses UP-TO-DATE [2021-09-07T21:14:48.585Z] > Task :core:compileScala

Re: [VOTE] KIP-770: Replace "buffered.records.per.partition" with "input.buffer.max.bytes"

Thanks Sagar, +1 from me. Guozhang On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 10:29 AM Sagar wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to start a vote on the following KIP: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186878390 > > Thanks! > Sagar. > -- -- Guozhang

Re: Timeline for production ready KRaft

It's difficult to forecast the future, but it seems likely to be ready in maybe between 6 months and a year. best, Colin On Thu, Sep 2, 2021, at 00:52, Kunal Goyal wrote: > Hello, > > We wanted to use Kafka without zookeeper. It would be good to know when > Apache KRaft is expected to be

Re: [VOTE] KIP 771: KRaft brokers should not expose controller metrics

+1 (binding) thanks, Ryan best, Colin On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, at 09:47, Colin McCabe wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > Thanks for working on this. I think it is almost ready to go. However, > I left a comment about the wording of the KIP in the DISCUSS thread. > > best, > Colin > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021,

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Konstantine, Given that we are making a new RC, I would suggest that we merge "KAFKA-13277; Fix size calculation for tagged string fields in message generator" to 3.0. What do you think? best, Colin On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, at 13:20, Konstantine Karantasis wrote: > Thanks David, > > Assuming

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Thanks David, Assuming we'll have the PRs you mention merged soon, I'll include them in RC2 for 3.0.0 given their low risk and the fact that we need to generate a new RC anyways. Konstantine On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:43 PM David Jacot wrote: > Hi Konstantine, > > I would like to propose

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Thanks for clarifying Ismael. In that case, your proposed change sounds good to include in RC2 as well. Konstantine On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Konstantine, > > I will remove the final modifier for now. > > I added it because the removal of the deprecated `close`

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-771: KRaft broker should not expose controller metrics

Thanks for the suggestions Colin, I updated the KIP, here are the changes: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=188743985=14=13 Regards, Ryan Dielhenn On 2021/09/07 16:46:13, "Colin McCabe" wrote: > Thanks for the update. You still have a lot of places

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #452

See Changes: -- [...truncated 281278 lines...] [2021-09-07T17:55:09.898Z] [2021-09-07T17:55:09.898Z] PlaintextConsumerTest > testConsumeMessagesWithCreateTime() PASSED

Re: [VOTE] KIP 771: KRaft brokers should not expose controller metrics

Hi Ryan, Thanks for working on this. I think it is almost ready to go. However, I left a comment about the wording of the KIP in the DISCUSS thread. best, Colin On Thu, Sep 2, 2021, at 13:20, Ryan Dielhenn wrote: > Hello kafka devs, > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-771. This KIP

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-771: KRaft broker should not expose controller metrics

Thanks for the update. You still have a lot of places that are written misleadingly. For example, > Pre-Kraft brokers currently register 0 for every controller metric. Someone reading this would wonder, if they're always 0, then why do we have these metrics? Please phrase this better to

[GitHub] [kafka-site] bellemare opened a new pull request #371: Added select KS APAC & EU 2021 videos

bellemare opened a new pull request #371: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/371 @miguno for review. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Konstantine, I would also like to include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13277 in 3.0 as a blocker. It is a small fix, will submit PR today. Thank you, Rajini On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:43 PM David Jacot wrote: > Hi Konstantine, > > I would like to propose

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-13277) Serialization of long tagged string in request/response throws BufferOverflowException

Rajini Sivaram created KAFKA-13277: -- Summary: Serialization of long tagged string in request/response throws BufferOverflowException Key: KAFKA-13277 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13277

[GitHub] [kafka-site] bellemare closed pull request #370: Added Kafka Summit Videos 2021

bellemare closed pull request #370: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/370 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Konstantine, I would like to propose https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11300 as a blocker as well. The PR fixes KAFKA-13258/13259/13260. There are all very small but annoying issues. The PR is trivial. Regarding KAFKA-13266, the fix is quite simple, so low risk in my opinion. Jason will

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Konstantine, I will remove the final modifier for now. I added it because the removal of the deprecated `close` overload could lead to weird behavior if the no-args `close` was overridden (the implementation of the no-arg `close` delegated to the removed `close`, but that's no longer the

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Regarding the documentation link which I forgot to answer above, docs are currently not deployed during preview. The link is generated in this templated format while running the release scripts. Gary, for now, you may find the docs for AK 3.0 in:

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Tom, It'd be good to avoid a breaking change in a subsequent release that is related to the modernization of KafkaFuture. Avoiding to use a reference to an non-public implementation class in the public interfaces seems to help us with that, as you observed. I'm approving KAFKA-13276 to be

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Gary, Regarding KAFKA-13262, this might need a more detailed and strong justification to be considered as a blocker at this point in the release. But we are already moving towards RC2 because of the blockers mentioned above, so I'd be in favor of a PR that would revert the change that made

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi David, Thanks for discovering the issue reported in KAFKA-13266. I'm tentatively approving it if we can review the PR this week, since we are going to have a new RC due to KAFKA-13270 anyways. This is not a change of a few lines of code though and while most of it seems to be shuffling around

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Ron, Thanks for reporting this issue. KAFKA-13270 is an obvious regression from previous versions, so the fix - that I now see has been merged already - is approved for inclusion in 3.0.0 and I'll add it to the next release candidate that we'll need to generate for 3.0.0. Konstantine On

Re: [VOTE] 3.0.0 RC1

Hi Magnus, Thanks for reporting the numbers. I agree that what you observe warrants further investigation, not so much because these are clear performance regressions but because they might be indications of underlying issues, as you noted. However, from a major release standpoint I'd say that